Todd Bersnoozi wrote:I have never been much of a baltard fan. I will admit that he looked pretty good this season and I thought he turned a leaf with AV cuz he was playing consistently and Alberts/Barker never even got a sniff. I was really surprised he was scratched in back-to-back games and especially with Bieska out.

If we're not going to play him, we might as well just trade him (even if it's a pure salary dump). If he's not going to be a top 4 guy for us, he's too expensive and too small for the bottom pairing. I won't mind just letting Alberts, Barker and even Vandermeer battle for that #6th spot. Knowing Gillis, he might try to keep ballard for the season cuz he likes having depth, especially on D and with the shortened season. He can take his time in the offseason for a trade and find a suitable replacement.

$4.2m for a depth that might never play another game is too much. As bad as Komisarek is, at the very least, he should be an upgrade over Alberts. Also, he is a RH defenseman that this team sorely needs. As long as Alberts is not on ice every game from now til the trading deadline, I would not mind taking Komisarek for Ballard now.

Topper wrote:I have long suspected there is something with Ballard toeing the party line or practice work ethic that puts him in AV's doghouse. Recall his first season when he was scratched. The team statement was he wasn't healthy and a couple of days later Ballard says he's been a healthy scratch.

The Canucks do not air their laundry in public and the speculation takes on a life of its own. Something repeated often enough suddenly takes on the dimension of fact.

Maybe the buyout decision has been made and Vancouver wants him healthy.

Things do take on a life of their own, I would bet none of us has a clue.

Jovocop wrote:
$4.2m for a depth that might never play another game is too much. As bad as Komisarek is, at the very least, he should be an upgrade over Alberts. Also, he is a RH defenseman that this team sorely needs. As long as Alberts is not on ice every game from now til the trading deadline, I would not mind taking Komisarek for Ballard now.

vs. Komisarek at $4.5? With a NMC? At least we can move/dump Ballard wherever we want. We take on Komi and we're stuck with him. Saving 900K dumping him in the minors isn't even an option. ADDING salary to our bottom pairing with a guy that will probably be bought out this summer? No thank you.

I'd rather dump Ballard for a draft pick than take on a worse contract that still might not play...

Yeah, too bad. Gillis may have wanted too much for Lou and waited too long. I think the rumours were:
Kadri & Bozack for Lou
or
Luke Schenn for Lou

Kadri is starting to break out and live up to his potential, I can't see nonis moving him now. Boy, kadri would look great now @ centre with coho and manny gone, and kes injured. Nice young centre-man for our future like coho.

Luke Schenn was moved for Van Reimsdyk. A young budding power foward who is more skilled and more NHL ready than kassassian. Boy, having Van Reimsdyk and Kassian together would be sweeeet!

Jovocop wrote:$4.2m for a depth that might never play another game is too much. As bad as Komisarek is, at the very least, he should be an upgrade over Alberts. Also, he is a RH defenseman that this team sorely needs. As long as Alberts is not on ice every game from now til the trading deadline, I would not mind taking Komisarek for Ballard now.

Hockey Widow wrote:As for Komisarek, the Komisarek that played for the Habs in the playoffs would be a welcomed addition to this team. A right handed shot and a mean SOB. He has his warts and has not lived up to his contract but I think he would look good with Edler. I like Ballard more don't get me wrong but at this point lets manage the asset.

Gee maybe Komisarek, Kadri and Bozack would not have been too bad after all.

Jovocop wrote:
$4.2m for a depth that might never play another game is too much. As bad as Komisarek is, at the very least, he should be an upgrade over Alberts. Also, he is a RH defenseman that this team sorely needs. As long as Alberts is not on ice every game from now til the trading deadline, I would not mind taking Komisarek for Ballard now.

vs. Komisarek at $4.5? With a NMC? At least we can move/dump Ballard wherever we want. We take on Komi and we're stuck with him. Saving 900K dumping him in the minors isn't even an option. ADDING salary to our bottom pairing with a guy that will probably be bought out this summer? No thank you.

I'd rather dump Ballard for a draft pick than take on a worse contract that still might not play...

YA I see he has one more season after this. I thought he was UFA after this season which is why I thought it would be a good move but in reality it stinks. As for the Leaves they won't want Ballard.

As for Ballard being a good player on a bad team and his warts showing that sounds about right. Seems most players, other than Luongo and Jovo, that we get from Florida come here and struggle. Note to MG no more trades with Florida unless it is for picks and prospects.

Too bad this is blowing up now because Ballard's trade value just plummeted.

MG won't trade him unless he gets a return to help us. As pointed out he likes depth in the playoffs.

Only $3.5 remainder for this season and 1 more year @ the same salary. Baltard still has 2 more years @ $4.2 after this season.

Island Nucklehead wrote:

Jovocop wrote:
vs. Komisarek at $4.5? With a NMC? At least we can move/dump Ballard wherever we want. We take on Komi and we're stuck with him. Saving 900K dumping him in the minors isn't even an option. ADDING salary to our bottom pairing with a guy that will probably be bought out this summer? No thank you.

I'd rather dump Ballard for a draft pick than take on a worse contract that still might not play...

Island Nucklehead wrote:
vs. Komisarek at $4.5? With a NMC? At least we can move/dump Ballard wherever we want. We take on Komi and we're stuck with him.

I believe, though I could be wrong, that once a NTC or NMC clause is waived once, it is out of the contract altogether. Since Komisarek would have to waive it to go to VAN, there would be no clause left.

Island Nucklehead wrote:I'd rather dump Ballard for a draft pick than take on a worse contract that still might not play...

Of course, but you'd have to find a team that believes that contract is not a liability

Island Nucklehead wrote:
vs. Komisarek at $4.5? With a NMC? At least we can move/dump Ballard wherever we want. We take on Komi and we're stuck with him.

I believe, though I could be wrong, that once a NTC or NMC clause is waived once, it is out of the contract altogether. Since Komisarek would have to waive it to go to VAN, there would be no clause left.

Island Nucklehead wrote:I'd rather dump Ballard for a draft pick than take on a worse contract that still might not play...

Of course, but you'd have to find a team that believes that contract is not a liability

I don't think so in all cases. Gagne obviously waived to go back to the Flyers but made it clear he would not waive it at the deadline if the Flyers asked him to so I'm not sure. Heatley on the other hand got dealt suddenly from the SJS so maybe it depends upon the clause??

Maybe Ballard's sitting out to rest some Dmen who've played lots and give the press box crew some reps during a month with a ridonkulous schedule. I wasn't overly surprised Bieksa drew out, and rotating some of the Dmen in and out makes sense.

Even so, I'm in the 'Ballard looked better on a crappy team' camp. I give Ballard credit in that he did play pretty good the first couple of games... just like Kassian... I wonder if it's a trend where certain players in the league (either by playing during the lockout or some kind of lockout training regimen) got a head start against the competition but the market is correcting itself - guys who looked good early on are not so noticeable in a good way anymore.

Even though Ballard did look good, you have to ask yourself whether he was looking good or whether Tanev was making him look good. The one constant with the blueline this season is that Tanev pretty much makes every partner he has look, at least, not too bad out there. Hell, he can even make Alberts seem like a safe option out there.

It'll be interesting now if it's true that Ballard's agent is trying to talk Gillis into trading his client. I get it, given Ballard's experience in Vancouver. Having said that, I think there would be a market for Ballard - even with his contract. There are teams out there who would dearly like an NHL-capable Dman who can skate and mvoe the puck. God knows there must be at least one GM out there who will bite for a relatively high pick.

Vader wrote:
I believe, though I could be wrong, that once a NTC or NMC clause is waived once, it is out of the contract altogether. Since Komisarek would have to waive it to go to VAN, there would be no clause left.

I don't think so in all cases. Gagne obviously waived to go back to the Flyers but made it clear he would not waive it at the deadline if the Flyers asked him to so I'm not sure. Heatley on the other hand got dealt suddenly from the SJS so maybe it depends upon the clause??

I did some research...it seems if the player is his UFA years, the acquiring team has the right to refuse to honour the NTC / NMC and this is determined at the time of the trade. If the player would not otherwise be UFA and is traded the NTC goes away - see Jeff Carter

If a player waives a clause to accept a trade to a new team, it is rare he will do so without a promise that the acquiring team will continue to honour the clause. Brad Richards, when traded from Tampa Bay to Dallas in 2007-08, is an example of this. However, if the player is traded before a clause has kicked in, that clause is automatically ruled void.

11.8(a) The SPC of any player who is a Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agent under Article 10.1(a) may contain a no-Trade or a no-move clause. SPCs containing a no-Trade or a no-move clause may be entered into prior to the time that the Player is a Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agent so long as the SPC containing the no-Trade or no-move clause extends through and does not become effective until the time that the player qualifies for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency. If the player is traded or claimed on Waivers prior to the no-Trade or no-move clause taking effect, the clause does not bind the acquiring Club. An acquiring Club may agree to continue to be bound by the no-Trade or no-move clause, which agreement shall be evidenced in writing to the Player, Central Registry and the NHLPA, in accordance with Exhibit 3 hereof.

11.8(b) A no-move clause may prevent the involuntary relocation of a player, whether by Trade, Loan or Waiver claim. A no-move clause, however, may not restrict the Club's buy-out and termination rights as set forth in this Agreement. Prior to exercising its Ordinary Course Buy-Out rights pursuant to Paragraph 13 of the SPC hereof, the Club shall, in writing in accordance with the notice provisions in Exhibit 3 hereof, provide the Player with the option of electing to be placed on Waivers. The Player will have twenty-four (24) hours from the time he receives such notice to accept or reject that option at his sole discretion, and shall so inform the Club in writing, in accordance with the notice provisions in Exhibit 3 hereof, within such twenty-four (24) hour period. If the Player does not timely accept or reject that option, it will be deemed rejected.

At any rate, I can't imagine a guy like Komisarek would care at this point where he plays....

Only $3.5 remainder for this season and 1 more year @ the same salary. Baltard still has 2 more years @ $4.2 after this season.

Unless things have changed since the last CBA, his cap hit is still $4.5M (total salary divided by years of contract). So a team trying to reach the floor might find that attractive (making less money but counting for more...), but a team like the Canucks would probably prefer the cap space.

Jovocop wrote:
$4.2m for a depth that might never play another game is too much. As bad as Komisarek is, at the very least, he should be an upgrade over Alberts. Also, he is a RH defenseman that this team sorely needs. As long as Alberts is not on ice every game from now til the trading deadline, I would not mind taking Komisarek for Ballard now.

Komisarek is fucking brutal. Garbage player who can't play in the Leaves lineup but he will play here ??? Right.

"Balltard" has been mismanaged since he got here and that is on AV. Doh I said " Balltard " on a message board.Tee hee Mrs Grundy . As for anyone wanting Komisarek or questioning why we didn't get Kadri or Van Reimsdyk .... I swear these people need to chip the feces off their domes with an air chisel , remove their heads from their colons and come up for some fucking air.

Only $3.5 remainder for this season and 1 more year @ the same salary. Baltard still has 2 more years @ $4.2 after this season.

Unless things have changed since the last CBA, his cap hit is still $4.5M (total salary divided by years of contract). So a team trying to reach the floor might find that attractive (making less money but counting for more...), but a team like the Canucks would probably prefer the cap space.